09.03.18

Gemini version available ♊︎

RALIA, Inventor Protection Act, STRONGER Patents Act and Other Attacks on PTAB (Because It Raises the Patent Bar)

Posted in America, Deception, Law, Patents at 1:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Lobbyists and bribed politicians still attempt to undo patent reform in Washington

Don't enter

Summary: Anti-PTAB legislations (whose sole purpose is to lower patent quality) try to make their way past common sense; the patent microcosm is boosting these while courts carry on doing their job, which nowadays more often than not involves rejection of erroneously-granted US patents

THE USPTO would almost certainly be granting patents like a patent-printing machine if it wasn’t for constant scrutiny from patent courts and groups like the EFF, CCIA and so on. Sadly, as we’ve just noted, 35 U.S.C. § 101 isn’t taken seriously enough by the Office. The new Director, a litigation person whose firm worked for Donald Trump, keeps trying to water it down. It cannot be done unless courts leave an opening/gap to be cherry-picked; as things stand, SCOTUS supports Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) and the Federal Circuit gave away nothing but Berkheimer, which the Director (Iancu) was happy to exploit irrespective of the facts (Berkheimer has not changed anything in the courts).

We’ve been carefully watching the latest attacks on patent quality. Watchtroll, for instance, was belatedly catching up with Click-To-Call at PTAB (among other news that may mean patent law firms will carry on rotting away). Robert Schaffer wrote about IPR time-bar* [1, 2] on a couple of occasions and together with his colleague Joseph Robinson he was covering the matters/affairs of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in light of recent cases, such as this 35 U.S.C. § 285 case (typically about whether the accused gets awarded legal fees by the trigger-happy accuser). We’ve pretty much covered all these cases before or at least mentioned these in passing. Joseph Robinson wrote about another important CAFC case — one wherein we saw software patents invalidated by a high court. The defendant, BuySeasons, did a good job leveraging the law against US Patents numbers 6,035,294, 6,243,699, and 6,195,652 [1, 2]. Quoting Watchtroll:

On August 15, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidation of BSG Tech LLC’s (“BSG”) patents as ineligible subject matter. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., No. 2017-1980, 2018 WL 3862646 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2018) (before Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes, J.) (opinion by Hughes, J.).

BSG asserted three patents with similar specifications that were directed to a “self-evolving generic index” for organizing information stored in a database — U.S. Patents No. 6,035,294, 6,243,699, and 6,195,652. The patents were “self-evolving” because users of the database could “add new parameters for use in describing items”, with guidance from the system, which would allow the database to be searched according to the new and existing parameters.

We generally prefer not to quote Watchtroll, but in order to understand what patent maximalists are up to it’s helpful to keep an eye on Watchtroll. Last week they used the term “IP Assets” in the headline (three lies in two words). Katharine Wolanyk generally alludes to universities using taxpayers-funded research to feed patent trolls that then attack the public as “Legal Finance” (what a breathtaking euphemism!). Her innovation seems to be that of euphemisms for bad practices that should be banned if not severely punished for (penalties, fines, maybe even sanctions).

Fenwick & West LLP’s Nina Srejovic and Charlene M. Morrow wrote a few days ago about IPRs in relation to appeals; This too was about a recent CAFC case. To quote:

The Federal Circuit further restricted a petitioner’s ability to appeal a decision by the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board upholding the validity of a patent. The court this month found in JTEKT v. GKN Automotive that a competitor who filed a petition for inter partes review could not appeal the PTAB’s validity determination because its product design was not definite enough to create a concrete and substantial risk of infringement or the likelihood of a claim of infringement. If this line of decisions stands, it will make it harder for competitors to clear the field of conflicting patents that they believe are invalid, as there would be no ability to appeal from an adverse Board decision.

They generally try anything they can to thwart PTAB and thus defend invalid/bogus patents from scrutiny. Gene Luoma, writing for Watchtroll yesterday (a Sunday), promotes the misleadingly-named “Inventor Protection Act” — one among several bills striving to take down patents like his. “This is why we need your support to help us restore our patent rights,” he concluded, mistaking patents for “rights” (they’re not rights, technically and legally speaking). He pleaded: “Please help us in our fight to pass H.R. 6557, the Inventor Protection Act, which has been introduced into the House of Representatives. After a decade of destruction of our patent rights, this bill restores patent rights to inventors like me who own their patents, helping us to continue supporting our families with the money earned from our inventions.”

This is nonsense. He also uses his disability to add an angle that has nothing to do with his patent/s; sympathy-garnering exercise at best. If his patent is worth what he believes, why should he fear PTAB? In our experience, people who loathe PTAB are those whose patents are of questionable quality (and deep inside they know it).

A few days earlier the American Enterprise Institute wrote about RALIA, another anti-PTAB bill. Michael Rosen from this patent zealots’ front group (American Enterprise Institute has always been misleadingly named) is trying to reduce patent quality and help patent trolls, not enterprises. Here is what he wrote (soon to be boosted by patent maximalists):

Shortly after several new patent reform bills were introduced in Congress over the summer, a new, even more radical piece of legislation has entered the scene.

[...]

RALIA would also rewrite the statute on patent eligibility, making it easier to obtain software and so-called business method patents, a process that the Supreme Court’s 2014 landmark Alice decision has strongly affected. The legislation contends that “the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence concerning subject matter patentability has harmed the progress of science and the useful arts” and loosens its strictures.

No, it does the exact opposite. But don’t let facts get in the way of career lobbyists.

Russell Slifer, part of the patent microcosm, then defines “bad” as what’s bad for the litigation ‘industry’. The lobbyists’ media of choice, The Hill, seems very happy if not eager to let these vultures do their lobbying. Slifer promotes the STRONGER [sic] Patents Act as follows: “One good place to start is the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act, H.R. 5340, introduced by Reps. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) and Bill Foster (D-Ill.) and its companion Senate bill, S.1390, introduced last year by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). These bills address some of the negative unintended consequences of the 2011 America Invents Act. To truly return America as a world leader in intellectual property protection, Congress must resolve to reverse the Supreme Court and allow our new industries to protect their innovations in the U.S, not China and Europe.”

These are all just anti-PTAB bills whose net effect is reduction in quality assessment and decline in patent quality. They rely on the perception that there’s anger, that there’s a scandal, and that there are feuds.

Alluding to last month’s RPX setback and Judge Reyna’s role in an earlier case, McDermott Will & Emery’s Brian A. Jones wrote about news several months too late (almost two months). Why now? To quote:

Addressing whether an inter partes review (IPR) petition was time barred under 35 USC § 315(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that the petitioner was not a real party in interest to the entity that had been served with an infringement complaint in district court more than one year earlier. Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Case Nos. 17-1698, -1699, -1701 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (O’Malley, J) (Reyna, J, concurring).

Applications in Internet Time (AIT) sued Salesforce.com, a software company, for patent infringement. Salesforce was served with a copy of the complaint on November 20, 2013.

[...]

Judge Reyna wrote separately to point out an independent ground for vacating the PTAB’s decision, namely that it failed to address whether RPX was also a “privy” of Salesforce. A petitioner is time barred under § 315(b) from filing a petition more than one year after the “petitioner, the real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint.” Judge Reyna explained that a number of additional factors must be considered to determine privity, including whether a legal relationship exists between the parties or whether one party acted as a proxy/representative for the other party. In the case of RPX and Salesforce, a contractual relationship existed, and RPX may have been acting as Salesforce’s proxy. Therefore, Judge Reyna would have instructed the PTAB to also thoroughly review whether RPX and Salesforce were in privity in these circumstances.

This is one of those rare PTAB cases where patent maximalists have something to gain. They will carry on cherry-picking and then boosting such cases. Knowing that politicians soon return to work (many come back tomorrow), they want to provoke them into endorsement of anti-PTAB bills.
___
* In his latest PTAB post, Kevin E. Noonan provided a more balanced interpretation, including some background:

Patent law has traditionally been considered to be fraught with traps for the unwary, which in practice just means that it is unwise to assume anything (see Carl S. Koening, “Clarifying Patent Terminology and Patent Concepts – An Introduction to Some Basic Concepts and Doctrine,” 15 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (1966)). Petitioner for an inter partes review proceeding, Vizio, Inc., v. ATI Technologies ULC suffered the consequences of one of those traps, when its petition for review of U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506 was deemed untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the petition was not filed within one year of Patent Owner filing suit against Petitioner Vizio. While a seemingly simple docketing matter, in this case the error arose over when (i.e., what date) the complaint was filed.

As set forth in the Board’s Decision denying institution, the facts are these. Vizio filed its IPR petition on February 1, 2017, one year after receiving the complaint. Patent Owner filed an affidavit of service, establishing that Patent Owner had mailed the complaint to Vizio on January 30, 2017. The question before the Board was whether the one-year time period under § 315(b) for filing an IPR petition ran from the date of mailing by Patent Owner or the date of receipt of the complaint by Petitioner Vizio.

To answer this question, the Board looked to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A), which states that a corporation is served “in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) states that service on an individual under the Rules is done “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located” (or where service is made). Thus, the Board reasoned, the time and manner where service was accomplished was a matter of Delaware law (where the Patent Owner was incorporated).

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Links 18/05/2022: More Defections From WordPress to Gemini

    Links for the day



  2. Links 18/05/2022: PikaScript and cURL's Annual User Survey

    Links for the day



  3. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, May 17, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, May 17, 2022



  4. Phoronix: Microsoft and Phoronix Sponsor (and Close Microsoft Partner) AMD All Over the Place

    When you’re taking massive 'gifts' from AMD (and also some from Microsoft) maybe it’s not surprising that editorial decisions change somewhat…



  5. EPO Has No F-ing Oversight

    Earlier today SUEPO mentioned this new article demonstrating that EPO President António Campinos can very obviously and blatantly violate the Code of Conduct of the Office without facing any consequences; there are translations too, so the report is now available in four languages



  6. [Meme] Linux-Rejecting Foundation

    The Linux Foundation never really leads by example; by default, it uses proprietary software



  7. Linux Foundation Almost Never uses Open Source

    The Linux Foundation uses proprietary software (look where they hire and take money from) and be sure they're probably not even aware of it



  8. Links 17/05/2022: Many More Games on GNU/Linux, YaST Development Report

    Links for the day



  9. Links 17/05/2022: Rocky Linux 8.6 and Budgie Desktop in Fedora

    Links for the day



  10. Patent Examiners Rising Up Against EPO Abuse

    Unhappy with the law-breaking autocracy (the EPO‘s management breaks the law as a matter of routine), fast-deteriorating working conditions and rapidly-decreasing quality of work (or lack of compliance with the law), workers have escalated further, topping off strikes and industrial actions with a large-scale petition



  11. [Meme] What Managers (Really) Mean by Acting Professionally

    The myth of 'professionalism' needs to die along with the façade of conformity as prerequisite for employment (Linus Torvalds can work just fine in a bathrobe in his own home)



  12. Internal Poll: 93% of European Patent Office (EPO) Workers Are Unhappy With the EPO

    On top of strike/s and industrial action/s there are now also petitions; at the EPO, almost all staff is "disgruntled" because of utterly corrupt and defunct leadership



  13. Links 17/05/2022: OpenSUSE Leap 15.4 Release Candidate

    Links for the day



  14. IRC Proceedings: Monday, May 16, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, May 16, 2022



  15. Links 16/05/2022: FreeBSD 13.1 and Inkscape 1.2 Released

    Links for the day



  16. Archiving Latest Posts in Geminispace (Like a Dated Web Directory But for Gemini)

    Earlier today we saw several more people crossing over from the World Wide Web to Gemini; we're trying to make a decent aggregator and archive for the rapidly-expanding Geminispace, which will soon have 2,500 capsules that are known to Lupa alone



  17. Microsoft Vidal Does Not Want to Listen (USPTO is Just for Megacorporations)

    Microsoft Vidal knows her real bosses. They’re international corporations (multinationals like Microsoft), not American people.



  18. Links 16/05/2022: China Advances on GNU/Linux and Maui 2.1.2 is Out

    Links for the day



  19. Jim Zemlin: Chief Revenue Officer in 'Linux' Seat-Selling Foundation

    Board seats in the Linux Foundation are basically a product on sale, based internal documents



  20. Reminder: Linux Foundation's Last IRS Filing is Very Old (Same Year the CFO Left)

    People really need to ask the Linux Foundation, directly, why its filings are years behind; this seems like a sensitive subject



  21. Linux Foundation Does Not Speak for GNU/Linux Users

    There's a serious problem in the "Linux" world as the so-called 'Linux' Foundation claims to speak for us (the GNU/Linux community) while in fact speaking against us (on the payroll of those looking to extinguish us)



  22. IBM's Lennart Poettering on Breaking Software for Pseudo Novelty

    Recently-uploaded ELCE 2011 clip shows a panel with Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Thomas Gleixner, Paul McKenney, and Lennart Poettering (relevant to novelty or perceived novelty that mostly degrades the experience of longtime users, e.g. Wayland and systemd)



  23. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, May 15, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, May 15, 2022



  24. Links 15/05/2022: Linux 5.18 RC7 and Calls for More Mass Surveillance

    Links for the day



  25. Audio: Mark Shuttleworth Marketed to Young Males, With Sexy Pictures

    The Web is rotting away, old links become broken links within months or years, so I’ve decided to encode a 3-minute segment of the whole as Ogg



  26. What a Difference Half a Decade Makes (When Linux Foundation is 'Having Fun')

    Media shaming campaigns may have taken their toll on the founder of Linux, who is now bossed by someone who rejects Linux and is married to a Microsoft booster. Like Richard Stallman under FSF guidance (and conditions for return, mostly for fear of further media assaults and attack dogs), he has become a more publicity-shy and private person. The Linux Foundation has in effect reduced the founder of what it’s called after (Linux) into a weekly release manager and mascot, whose brand it is gradually diluting/cheapening.



  27. Links 15/05/2022: GNU libiconv 1.17

    Links for the day



  28. [Meme] Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) Cannot Be Reconciled With the Law

    Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC)? Impossible. But Team UPC counts on an endless torrent of fake news managing to convince you (and more importantly politicians) otherwise.



  29. Even Team Battistelli is Sometimes Admitting -- Out in Public! -- That Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Neither Legal Nor Desirable

    Daniel X. Thomas and other people who are “too old to punish” (consequences to their career profoundly minimised owing to seniority) are among those who push back against the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); any sane person — not a career-climbing litigation zealot — can identify the pertinent facts and realise that what’s going on here is an injustice of unprecedented proportions in the patent discipline



  30. [Meme] Common Sense at EPO

    The European examiners who deal with patents prefer a system that works for science, for Europe, not for foreign megacorporations that amass millions of low-quality patents and weaponise these to discourage competition


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts